Text 3.2

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 755.

Interview with Keith Ellison, Democratic Congressman, the first Muslim member of the US Congress. BBC World, “HARDTalk” with Stephen Sackur, 16.01.2007

Stephen Sackur, the BBC presenter:The Democrats are now in the majority in the U.S. Congress and they have the votes to make life extremely uncomfortable for the Bush Administration. But do the Democrats want all that confrontation with the White House? My guest today is one of the most intensely scrutinised of the new Democratic intake – the first Muslim member of Congress. What does he want the Democrats to do with their newfound clout?

Stephen Sackur:Congressman Keith Ellison, welcome to HARDTalk!

Keith Ellison:Pleased to be here, Stephen, thank you to invite me!

Q.:That's a pleasure. Now, you made a lot of news across America because you became the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. But does your faith dictate your politics?

A.:No, it doesn't. My faith is of course very important to me and it informs me to be a generous, loving person, but my politics are in form by the needs of my constituency and they are very concerned about things like peace, the war in Iraq, covering all of the uninsured – there are 46 million people – don't have health insurance, middle class and working class prosperity. People are really concerned about are being to be able to make it for the ordinary American family.

Q.:But I just wannatalk about what you experienced as a Muslim campaigningfor the Congress because you did come up against a latent xenophobia and a fear of Islam, didn't you?

A.:Well, yeah, but let me just tell you this, Stephen, – so many more people understand that at the bedrock of American culture is the idea of religious tolerance. Many more people are aware of that.

Q.:Not all people seem to understand. They are just judging from what you came up against. I mean, I just want to quote one interview, which you underwent on CNN, November 14, after you'd succeeded, after you'd won election. One interviewer addressed you with this comment – he said: “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies”.

A.:Yeah, that was funny. I remember that interview. Well, it's so absurd. You know, it's ridiculous. And so, I found it humorous. It was so far away from anything realistic or sane. But the thing is that there are many, many more people, who've reacted to that kind of thing in a very disagreeable way. Many more people, who have said: “Hey, you can be any religion or faith you wanna be in America – that's what this country is all about”. So, you're right, Stephen, there has been a vocal minority but it's important to remember that they are a minority. Most people feel that religious tolerance is the bedrock of American value.

Q.:But looking at your response to that particular question at the time, you said, you talked of your deep love and affection on your country, you said: “I don't need to prove my patriotic stripes to anyone”.

A.:That's true…

Q.:But the truth is – to a section of United States public opinion it seems you do have to prove your patriotic stripes.

A.:Well, to the section of your reference, you know, I never say or do whatever be good enough for them.

Q.:You slam like you're angry…

A.:No, because for the overwhelming majority of Americans religious tolerance is a bedrock of American value. You know, when I was sworn in inthe ceremonial section – not at that mass swearing where all get sworn in, I didn't have any religious text, but at the ceremonial swore in I used the Qur'ān owned by Thomas Jefferson. Now, Thomas Jefferson is a primary and chief author of American democracy itself. And so if religious tolerance was a value, then one of the chief office of this American experiment, then, of course, it's the bedrock of our society and it should be a value that each and everyone of us cherish and hold dear. And for most Americans, Stephen, it is.

Q.:You said: “It should be”, you said “is”. But what does it say about the US Congress that one Republican Congressman, Virgil Goode from Virginia, could say of your decision to use that Qur'ān in your swearing-in ceremony. If Americans don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there'll be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Qur'ān.

A.:Yeah. And we could focus on that.

Q.:These are elected officials. And he felt free enough. And he felt that was a sufficient and popular stand that he could air it in public in his own state.

A.:Yeah. That did happen and, but, you know, he's only one of 435. I wish I can show you the stack of letters from people, who are members of Congress, who wrote me letters of support. I can go on and on. (unitelligible) Eleanor Holmes Norton, many, many more, who didn't write me things but just gave me words of encouragement as I walked on the House floor. You know what – in life, Stephen, we have a choice, we can choose to focus on those people, who aren't for us, who are against us, or we can focus on the good. I choose the good, Stephen. I'm one, who believes that people are better than worse things they ever did. I don't even hold anything against Virgil Goode. As a matter of fact, I think what he needs most of all is a better education and have a greater understanding of what Islam is all about.

Q.:I'm interested that you have taken what, I suppose, we can call a “softly-softly” approach to these sort of people, who've made these comments about your religion. But there is no getting away from some other stands. For example, maybe you've seen news poll just last year – showed 46% of Americans have a negative view of Islam, 58% said Islam had more violent extremists in it then other religions. Why do you think Islam is perceived that way in America today?

A.:Because the media projects Islam that way. I mean, people basically get their news through the mass media. And I'm not blaming the media but the fact is that it tacks the imagery that comes upon your TV screen every night – that's gonna impact your view. What we need to do is help people understand that Islam comes from a Judail-Christian-Islamic tradition. It is an Abrahamic religion and in Islam we look at Jesus, Moses and the prophets of the Torah as important messenders of God for us too. So this is an important thing to understand. And it's also important to understand that the people, the Muslims you hear most about do not represent the overwhelming number of Muslims in the United States or, I would say, around the world.

Q.:You mentioned at the very beginning of the interview your desire to influence policy on Iraq. Tell me what do you believe the US Government should do in Iraq now?

A.:I think that we should quite simply build friends and isolate enemies. And one of the ways that we can do that is by engaging diplomatically in Iraq and disengaging militarily. I think it's beyond question that there is a civil war in Iraq and that at this point what can the United States do militarily, other then lose brave young Americans and Brits in the conflict?

Q.:So, to be clear, you're advocating immediate withdrawal?

A.:Right!

Q.:Now, that means you're out of step with your own party.

A.:Well, I mean, that might be your view, but …

Q.:That's not my view, it's my reading of the views of the leaders of your own party, who not pushing for immediate withdrawal.

A.:That's your reading. And it's fair – it's your show. But in my opinion what we need is that we cannot add to the peace in Iraq militarily. We need to engage diplomatically and we need to help the factions there find a political solution to the things that they are fighting about now.

Q.:But what I'm getting at is: what is your view of the way in which the leaders of your party have come to the new Congress – a Congress, which, of course, now the Democrats control. And they're not talking about immediate withdrawal but they are talking about a motion of censure, in effect, – a motion which would say that we oppose what Mr Bush is doing. There at the moment is as far as they want to go. How do you feel about that?

A.:Well, you know, I think the leaders of the Democratic Party have been handling these things possibly. I mean, Mr Murtha, Jack Murtha, has been one of the chief proponents of redeployment in Irag, which is something that I'd agree with. In the out of Iraq caucus led by Maxine Waters has been very clear that we need a very, very sharp change of course which could or should include redeployment and withdrawal from Iraq. So, I mean, I think the point that you are making that I am out of step with the party is not exactly accurate…

Q.:What I'm making is based, for example,on House leader Nancy Pelosi, saying just the other day: “We will have oversight on Iraq but we will not be cutting off military funding”. Do you believe that the Congress should cut off military funding? And, in fact, say to Mr Bush: “You may have a strategy for sending more troops to Iraq but won't have the money to pay for it”?

A.:Let me tell you this. If I don't hear something very clear and very convincing about how we can get out of Iraq, how we can begin reconstruction, how we can monitor the money that we've already sent there – over 9 billion and a half dollars and nobody knows where it is – then I don't know why I should vote to send good money after bad.

Q.:I want to read you the words of Mike Scheuer, who was the Head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit for quite a while, he had since left the CIA, and he has written: “Bin Laden is attacking us because of a specific set of American policies – they've been in place for more than 30 years and haven't been reviewed, debated or questioned”. Would you agree with that assessment?

A.:Bin Laden is attacking us because he is a sick, dangerous, violent individual.

Q.:But the thing what Mr Scheuer's getting at is that there are some fundamental planks of the US foreign policy, for example, the unstinting support of Israel, support for so-called “moderate” regimes in the Arab world – that, perhaps, sought to be reviewed, debated, questioned. Do you believe he is right?

A.:Let me tell you what I do believe. I believe that anyone who would kill innocents in order to achieve a political objective is an evil person and I would never be in any way in line with them. I'd oppose them, as I do. But I will say that questions around the world that are the source of conflict, of course, should be discussed and debated. And we should come to political solutions to these problems. I'm very much in favour of a political settlement, dialogue, negotiation to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I'm very much in favour of a resolution of a lot of the conflicts around the world but I think they need to be done diplomatically, they need to be done into bargaining and never should we resort to dominate people militarily in order to achieve a political objective.

Q.:But with respect, if I can bring you back to the question: “Do you believe it is time, for example, for the United States to review its relationship with Israel and, perhaps, be less unreserved in its support for Israel as part of what you describe as this “regional approach”?

A.:I believe that there are senior citizens and children and hardworking Israelis and Palestinians, who deserve a better life, who deserve to wake up and go by their daily business without having worrying about being shot or bombed, or killed and I believe that the political leaders around this world and in those two areas have a responsibility to work for peaceful solution. That's what I believe.

Q.:Is it difficult for you to answer that question directly because you are a Muslim and you fear that some people, if you say it's time for the US to get tough on Israel, will pigeon you a hole as a Muslim apologist?

A.:No, I thought I did answer it directly.

Q.:You didn't answer directly this one point: “Do you think it is time for the United States to put more pressure on Israel?”

A.:I think it's time for the United States and the world community to encourage both sides of this conflict to put the people of those two areas first!

Q.:Is it time for the United Sates to tell Israel to stop building settlements on occupied land, to negotiate over the future of Jerusalem?

A.:It's time for both sides to negotiate peace. Now, you want a certain set of words to be used. If you do – you use it! I gonna pick my own words. My words are these – that the people, who live in Palestinian areas and in Israel deserve a chance and a better life and it is wrong for other nations of this world and the political leaders, who are in the area, to let this violence continue and we need a political solution so people can live in peace, so that doctors can give cares or the teachers can teach lessons, or the kids can go to school – that's what we need. And I think we gotta get about that business. Because when we're consistently working on peace, we may not get it right away. It does take time and it is hard. But at least hope for better tomorrow is there. If we're not even trying to work on the problem, then we get a hopeless situation and people, who are overwhelmingly frustrated and extreme, will resort to methods that are bad for everybody, which I mean by violence.

Q.:Let me ask you about the Democratic agenda for the coming congressional session. It's just strikes me that 12 years ago in 1994 when the Republicans swept the Congress, they came in talking of a revolution, a “Republican revolution”. The Democrats have not come into this Congress with quite that revolutionary fervour from a Democratic perspective, of course. But why is that?

A.:Well, I guess, I would question your premise again, you know. I think it's one thing to have a big marketing thing over year over the shifting Congress and it's another thing to be really about the business, the people, the country. What you see happening with Democrats now is that we are not doing a mass, an avenue revolution. What we're doing is we're trying to take care of the business, of the people of this country. I've only been here about a week. And so far we have passed bills on the minimum wage, lobbying, reform, prescription drugs, stem-cell research, 9/11 recommendations. We've been busy.

Q.: You have been busy. I don't doubt you have been busy. But, for example, one signature issue, which, I believe, you support, which is extending universal healthcare to the 45 million Americans, who are currently uninsured, 47 million, maybe, – that is not party policy. Why?

A.:Here's why. Because, you know, the Democratic Party is a big boat. And in some things we cannot get everybody in the boat on that yet. I perfectly and urgently, and earnestly pray that we do …

Q.:But that's preciselymy point, you see…

A.: … but at this point we gotta get a greater level of unanimity on that point. Now, there is none in Democrats, who I know and there are quite a few Republicans, who I do know, who would love to see national healthcare coverage for everybody, but we don't all agree on method. I believe in a single payer system where we'll essentially would take Medicare and make Medicare for all. That's what I believe we should do. Not everybody believes in that method. This is the normal going back and forth that happens in any political process. And so, you, look, I'm dying for the day, I can't wait for the day when we can have national health insurance. But until we can get everybody in the boat on method, it's just something that the Party can't take a position on.

Q.:The Party can't take a position on several things that you really believe in and I'm wondering whether that leads you to worry about the real commitment to change for the Democratic Party, because…[inrejection]

A.:I never worry.

Q.:You never worry… . Rahm Emmanuel, the strategist, who many people see is the brains in the current Democratic movement – he says that what he sees is suburban populism focusing on, quote, “the doable staff”. But some of the things you believe in, for example, you want a massive shift, a renewable energy. You want, I believe, a new human rights agenda. I think, you have serious problems with many of the legislative acts taken by the Bush Administration – that sort of things. Well, I don't see these things on the Democratic agenda. Is the party too timid?

A.:Is the party tootimid … . You know, I'm not trying to cast aspersions, Stephen. I know you need to make an interesting program and I appreciate that… [overlapping – both together]

Q.:I'm not asking you to cast aspersions, I just want your opinion… [overlapping]

A.: My opinion is – the people like me have to work harder to convince more people that these things, these ideals that we're striving for are worth fighting for. And we need to include them in our agenda. So I'm not worried about it, I'm frustrated about it, I just know that we've got to continue to make the case.

Q.:On this programme recently we talked to Joe Lockhart, who consulted for John Kerry during his losing presidential campaign and was associated with the Clinton Administration. And he said: “The current Democratic Party lacks confidence and it lacks an authentic voice, and it lacks real leadership”. Now, he was speaking admittedly before the Congressional mid-term victory but nonetheless, do you still feel the Democratic Party lacks big leaders and big vision?

A.:No, I don't think that. I would not diagnose that as the problem. I think that Democrats in general, I'm not talking about the party or the Congress but I mean people, who call themselves Democrats, do need a big idea, unifying vision and that is around the common good. And, I think, we need to embrace the party.

Q.:Nobody, sorry to interrupt you, nobody is gonna argue that party shouldn't be for the common good. I mean, that's apple pie and common sense.

A.:I disagree with you.

Q.:Really?

A.:Yes, I do.

Q.:In what way then? Is simply saying “We are committed to the common good” cannot persuade the American people that the Democrats, for example, deserve their votes in the next presidential election?

A.:Because Americans have seen an energy policy that is not for the common good but is for the top 1%. Americans have seen a healthcare policy that is for the 1%, the 2%. We've seen drug companies make record profits as seniors, you know, scratch out a few bucks to afford their medications and their drugs. We don't have a policy at this point that is designed around a common good. We have an economic and political policy that is designed around what's good for the wealthiest people in this country.

Q.:Do you think looking at the guys, who are currently in the race for the presidential nomination on a Democratic side – Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards – do you think these people are prepared to take the radical decisions that you seem to pointing towards?

A.:Politicians see the light where they feel the heat. We got to go to the people, Stephen. It's on main street, it's in rural America, it's in suburban America where we need to build this movement, the demands, a politics of generosity, of inclusion and of the common good which, I think, today is a radical idea in America. I think that's where we got to go. I think that if anybody running for president believes that they can win if they set a political agenda that makes the ordinary hardworking American person, who doesn't have health insurance, who's making just a little bit more than minimum wage, whose son and daughter is being sent off to a war, – that doesn't make any sense. I think that if a politician sets a political agenda around the needs of that person, that they will be successful.

Q.: Who is it gonna be? I've given you three names…

A.: I don't know.

Q.:Whom do you favour?

A.:I'm not well in a guess. Honestly, I mean, you know, I think they are all good candidates. I will say this – I think that, of course, Barack Obama is exciting candidate. I like what he has to say about inclusion but also I want to say that Al Gore, probably, is the clearest on the most grievous problem facing the entire world, which is global climate change.

Q.:If I may interrupt you. I'm interested you mentioned Barack Obama because we talked about your unique status as a Muslim in Congress. Of course, Barack Obama has a unique status or would have, were he to succeed in his quest for the nomination in the presidency. America's never had a black president. Do you believe for that reason alone you, as a black man, should support Barack Obama?

A.: Of course, not! As a matter of fact, the days of identity politics are over. Women should not support somebody just 'cos they are women. Let me talk about Nancy Pelosi – is an intelligent, a charismatic, skilful politician that people support not just 'cos her gender but because she's just out of sight. And the same can be said for Barack Obama. We have to put the best interest of the common person not just identity politics to get a person of a particular color, culture, or religion, or gender. Those kinds of politics are of yesterday.

Q.: Do you believe the Democrats are at a point now where they can find the inspiration to win the White House as well as the Congress?

A.: I have absolutely no doubt about it. I am certain of it. Because I think the people are going demand that they'd been listened to. I just have faith that there is a politician who's willing to listen and to articulate the agenda that is based on inclusion, that's based on peace and I just know what's gonna happen.

Stephen Sackur:Keith Ellison, thank you very much for being on the HARDTalk!

Keith Ellison: My pleasure, Stephen!

Stephen Sackur:Thank you! Much appreciated!

BBC World, 16.01.2007, http://www.bbcworld.com/